Supreme Court on Thursday proposed an amicable settlement between Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev’s Isha Foundation and a Coimbatore resident who challenged the establishment of a crematorium near his home, signalling a conciliatory approach in a dispute that has drawn local attention.Recording the consent of both sides, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, observed that the foundation was prepared to offer a fair market price for petitioner S. N. Subramanian’s property to facilitate his relocation. The court indicated that a negotiated resolution could serve the interests of all parties and reduce the scope for prolonged litigation.
The case stems from Subramanian’s plea objecting to the setting up and functioning of a crematorium on land associated with the Isha Yoga Centre on the outskirts of Coimbatore. He contended that the facility’s proximity to his residence had caused distress and affected his quality of life. His petition raised concerns relating to environmental norms, zoning permissions and alleged non-compliance with local regulatory requirements.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the foundation conveyed its willingness to compensate the petitioner at prevailing market rates if he chose to move. The bench took note of this submission and suggested that both sides explore settlement terms. The judges refrained from making detailed observations on the merits of the allegations, instead encouraging dialogue.
The Isha Foundation, founded by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, operates a sprawling spiritual and educational campus at the foothills of the Velliangiri hills in Coimbatore district. Over the years, the organisation has expanded its activities to include yoga programmes, educational initiatives and environmental campaigns. The crematorium in question was reportedly established to cater to the needs of the ashram community and local residents.
Subramanian’s petition followed proceedings before lower forums, where questions were raised about permissions granted by local authorities. Legal filings indicate that the dispute centres on whether statutory clearances under municipal and environmental regulations were properly obtained and whether the location complied with prescribed distance norms from residential structures.
Cases involving burial grounds and crematoria frequently hinge on a balance between public utility and individual rights. Courts have previously underscored that while such facilities are essential civic amenities, they must operate within the framework of planning laws and environmental safeguards. Judicial precedents emphasise that local bodies must ensure adherence to siting criteria and pollution control standards.
Environmental compliance has become a focal point in similar disputes across several states. Guidelines issued by pollution control authorities typically require buffer zones, proper emission control systems and adequate access roads. Residents often cite concerns about smoke, odour and psychological discomfort, while operators argue that modern facilities minimise impact through improved technology.
The Supreme Court’s suggestion of a settlement reflects a broader judicial trend favouring negotiated solutions in property and neighbourhood disputes, particularly where compensation may offer practical relief. By recording the willingness of the foundation to purchase the house at fair value, the bench sought to create space for compromise without delivering a determinative ruling on contested regulatory questions.
Legal experts note that court-facilitated settlements can reduce uncertainty and prevent escalation. At the same time, they caution that such outcomes do not substitute for regulatory scrutiny, especially when environmental compliance is in question. Should negotiations falter, the matter could return for adjudication on substantive grounds.
For the petitioner, the offer of fair market compensation presents a potential exit from a protracted legal battle. For the foundation, a consensual resolution could avert adverse findings and maintain community relations around its campus. The court’s approach signals sensitivity to both individual grievances and the operational needs of large institutions.
Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, who has been associated with multiple public outreach campaigns, has previously stated that the foundation complies with applicable laws and regulations. The organisation has also faced legal challenges in other contexts, including land use and environmental clearances, which have been contested before various forums.